iMoan: Its good to talk

Good day reader, how is the world with you? Fine I hope?
Things on my side of the bed have been ....eventful. If I'm blessed enough to have you as a regular reader, then I guess you've read tales of my redundancy, my struggle to understand 'unemployment TV' and my campaign to again find work.

I'm quite happy to announce that the end of my story is not disimilar to that of a fairy tale or a hollywood blockbuster; 'happy ever after' well at least for now.

I managed to secure a position, permanent even. I can't but give praise onto a true friend who helped out in this respect, he heard my story and was in a position to help....Its good to talk! The role does have me deviate from my career path a little, but in these times of 'austerity measures' I'm unshamefully glad to have any form of paid work....and there lies the problem.

Whilst unemployed, I experienced a rollercoaster of emotions comprising of conflicting ideologies of society and the way we as people operate in 'civilisation'. I had the opportunity to WATCH the news (there is a difference between watching the news and WATCHING the news), I had the opportunity to talk to people about how they feel in general about work and more importantly life and on the back of this mini research I've concluded that "The Matrix" (the film) is probably one of the most accurate analogies of modern life there is to find. For those who have seen the film you should understand exactly what I mean by that comment, those who haven't or have seen it but don't agree watch it (again).

I was overwhelmed at how many people view the quality of their lives purely on the basis of how much income they generate, that is both male and female. My biggest shock is how easily I too begun to think like this, but I'll sherk the responsibilty of that mindset and blame external influences.

I've learnt a little about myself in this brief jobless interlude, I've come to appreciate the extent of my own resilience, I've come to appreciate that I really have a 'never die' attitude even when its bleek and there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of options. My tolerence for bullshit has increased a fair deal, I'm generally a more rounded individual after this campaign....

So here I am, on public transport (that I hate so much) doing the daily commute like all the other cattle....I mean members of the workforce, the girl sitting two seats away is eating smokey bacon chrisps and the whole carriage smells like pork rind...I smile to myself as a week ago I didn't have a need to be on the tube because I was unemployed...

iMoan, whilst remaining thankful for all mercies...

iMoan: Finding a Job is a Job

As I sit here in my Dickens Chesterfield low back chair, donning my monocle, cigar, dickey bow and long johns. I reminisce on the old days when I was a whipper snapper, when I had no clue about the world and all its wonders......STOP! Stop right there!!!!

Hopefully the above is a line I can scribe one day in true sincerity, however, for now I have other issues, way more pressing issues.

First I must commend man for his utilisation of the concept of 'Time', by this I mean it is truly great to be able to mark one's point of birth and celebrate the occurrence on an annual basis. It is an honour to calculate the amount of time it takes to build palaces and monuments of splender. Its truly a gift to be able to calculate the amount of time it takes the Sun's rays to reach our atmosphere... there is no doubt that the concept and practical use of 'Time' is truly special. However as with all things, there is a positive and negative side to this tale...

This same concept of 'Time' that serves to highlight and keep a reign on 'happenings' does so for both positive and negative sides of all stories, take for instants the fact that I have now been unemployed for 10weeks!!!!!

Yes you read this correctly it has been 10weeks since I earned a salary!!! Now I don't really normally like to moan, but in honesty this is a moan worthy subject, I mean really it is. Don't get me wrong, I've clearly enjoyed the 'time off', it has been blessing to be able to go to bed late, knowing full well I can have a lie in and not have to come up with any excuses for some boss figure in the morning. Its been nice to have too many glasses of wine the night before knowing full and well that I won't be driving to or for work in the morning. These are aspects of unemployment that are truly priceless and ironically occur at 2 ends of the financial scale i.e. Unemployed or Debt free and financially independent.

As with my brief assessment of 'Time', there are positives and negatives to the carefree (less concerned) lifestyle. In my case stark reminders come in the form of ever diminishing bank account balances, delivered on the monthly bank statements. Suddenly paying £75 for Sky Tv and £45 mobile phone contracts seem like a lot of money. The sobering image of your diminishing finances, sees you measure the remainder not in k's, but in weeks. Specifically 'how many more weeks can I survive on what is left'. You notice you walk around turning off lights and closing dripping taps, you give great care and attention to the hot water and central heating schedule, questioning "is it really necessary to have the heating on when I'm asleep". You literally turn into the most frugal version of YOU.

Your distaste for your current and diminishing financial state serves to provide you with a great fuel of enthusiasm, grit and determination. You do not like your financial state and so distancing yourself from it in the shortest possible time turns you into an employment fiend. Your already a member of almost every on-line agency there is going, you've bribed various members of the Job centre team, into giving you the 'heads up' on certain jobs as soon as they are available (sometimes before advertising), you've got friends and family on the case.

You've re-written your CV, shit you've got two or three versions depending on the application. The Job centre told you, you need to make at least 8 applications every 2 weeks to be seen as actively looking for work, you make 8 applications before 10am nearly everyday for 2 weeks.
In most cases you get no feedback, then, you find what looks like your perfect role, you apply, you call the agent moments after sending your CV to 'discuss' your prospects with the 'expert' (there are very few experts in recruitment), you get Vmail, you leave a message, you wait....
An hour passes, you really love the look of this role, it has your name all over it and so you call back, again Vmail, you call the mobile number, again Vmail, you leave messages on both. Repeat the above for 3 days straight, then your perfect job is no longer being posted on the recruitment sites any-more....some fu&ker got it!!! You grieve for a moment, pull back on your battle armour and go at it again, apply apply apply! Then your overqualified!!!

WHAT THE FRENCH CONNECTION IS 'OVER QUALIFIED'?

–adjective
having more education, training, or experience than is required for a job or position.

That is the dictionary definition of the term, now if I have been honoured enough to have you read my rants and or moans, I think you would agree that my approach to matters is not dissimilar to my forename 'Simple'. I won't disappoint now....

If it is, that by definition 'Overqualified' means "having more education, training, or experience than is required for a job or position", wouldn't it be safe to say, that an overqualified person is more than acceptable for the job?

Now I know immediately the 'off the wall' / 'out the box' thinkers among you will automatically say "Its not whether you can do the job or not, its more about you leaving if you get a better offer". I've heard this so many times, but the question I would like to ask is this; If it is that I am the person seeking employment, I've read the job description, acknowledged the salary, placed an application and then called up to 'discuss' the role in more detail, would it not stand to reason, that I am aware I'm overqualified for the position? Could it not be that I actually want an easier life? Would I really waste my time to apply for a position, start the position and then waste more time, by sitting another interview elsewhere, to then up sticks and move? Isn't that a lot of bother? Is it not possible, that the overqualified applicant knows he's overqualified and still wants the position?

Surely from an employers point of view, having a member of staff who exceeds the experience and qualifications required is an asset? Surely it offers confidence that the role will be fulfilled to a standard above satisfactory and could even see strategic deployment of processes and procedures that will improve the roles scope and productivity of the department as a whole? All for a bargain salary....

Don't misunderstand me here, because I am fortunate to have been on both sides of the imaginary fence. I too have sat at the employers end of the table with an applicant's future in my grasp, I too have told candidates that they're overqualified BUT!! I've given due explanation. In some cases the person's CV is dumbed down to get them to interview stage, nothing wrong with that, but at the point where we start talking and it comes to light that you are an inventor, mathematician etc... I will lay the truth on you, like butter on toast.

"You have an excellent resume from what I can see here, coupled with what you have told me, I can tell you for a fact that this role will bore you senseless within 2months. It actually takes about 6months for you to have a full understanding of how this role fits in with the rest of the business, the repetitive nature of the role will see you pull your hair out way before then. With regard to this role, I would be the one training you, providing this is the case, there is nothing worst for me, than to train someone over a 6month period just to have them up sticks and leave.....meaning I'll have to do it all over again and in essence not fully fulfil my other role duties, couple this with the fact that this position has NO graduation or career path and you will literally just be collecting pay-checks, less than modest ones at that. I'm of the opinion that someone of your skill set and expertise could be doing...."

That is my speech, on the surface its harsh, but I feel I've given ample justification to why you are not getting the job and also issued direction on where better to pawn your skills. I've even spoken to the recruitment service in question on the candidates behalf (with permission of-course) and given testimony to the above effect, ultimately steering the recruiter in the best direction for the candidate. What is most satisfying is I've been thanked by both recruiters and candidates for the advice.

You see what I've understood is that the same 'Time' that I mentioned before is precious, every single second is valuable, so if it is I can take 5mins of your time now that will save you 2months of certain disappointment later, I feel duty bound to do so, with your permission of-course.

So it irks me no end when some 'new kid on the block' recruiter tells me, I'm overqualified and he won't consider me for a position because I might change my mind and take a better offer if and when it comes along....WTF.com!!!

As if the 'recruiter politics' was not enough, national politics is seeing massive cuts in virtually every facet of UK life, from benefits to jobs. Unemployment is high and set to rise and that old ratio of 50 people to every position is now more like 1000. In fact if you get a job today you should be a combination of happy and paranoid. Happy because you triumphed over 999 other candidates but paranoid because you might have been the cheapest and most gullible option; no one wants to be the office fool...

That said, my new strategy is to apply for positions I have no chance in hell of getting (on paper), sods law will have me get called up for interviews and all sorts LMFAO...

Maybe that's how so many incompetent people get into high positions...? Oi! stop looking at your line manager/supervisor/boss ;-)

iMoan because right now, it truly is my main source of entertainment...oh yeah and cos I have a point!

iMoan: Unemployment TV

My first encounter with 'unemployment Tv' occurred many years ago, back when I was in secondary school. I was the unfortunate victim of a football accident that left me 'bed bound' with a broken clavicle. 'Ouch' I hear you say, it was 'ouch' at the time, but after being patched up and then told "It will be 6 weeks before you can return to school" it was a 'Yippie Kiyay' from me! 6 weeks of being waited on, hand and foot. 6 weeks of watching the TV that I've not seen for years DAYTIME TV.

My fascination with daytime television was similar to the 'what happens when I go to bed' phenomenon that saw so many of us coming up with schemes to 'stay up late'. No matter how many times you were told that 'nothing' happens once you've gone to bed, you still had a serious desire to be up to see this 'nothing'. Equally I would be at school on occasion wondering what was on TV, what else was going on in the world, well now I have the chance to see!

Unfortunately I was disappointed back then. I dubbed daytime TV 'Unemployment TV', as back then I considered school to be my employment. My argument was, I wake up at the same time as my parents (who go to work), I spend 6 and a half hours 'at the office'. I have a number of 'managers' and the headmaster is 'the boss'....that to me was 'work'. Anyway the disappointment came about from program content... unemployment Tv was crap! Why in Jesus am I all bandaged up in front of a TV and all that's on are Antique Auctions. Where are all the good programs?!?!?!?

Fast forward to 2010 and I'm now at home again during the day, which ofcourse = 'Unemployment Tv'...so what has changed?

Well for starters antique auctions are still there, but now they are joined by Heir Hunter, Homes under the Hammer and Cash in the Attic and some other property investment programs. Now initially with that line-up, I automatically thought the programme schedule was out of kilter with the audience, I mean what does an unemployed person want with a property investment program...they don't have jobs so property investing won't be on their 'to-do' list.

It took days of contemplation before my simple brain came to a conclusion that could/would explain the daytime programme schedule. 'Unemployment Tv' was NOT especially for the unemployed! A damning realisation for me, because it leads to the notion that unemployed people are forgotten in the eyes of society. Its all good and well doing statistical reports on them and using them (us) as political tools when it suits the regime. Instead daytime Tv is aimed at the small/medium business owners who are looking to dabble in a little property investment, or mature citizens who have a few antiques they wish to have appraised.

So why isn't there any TV programmes for the unemployed? I mean, I have Sky at home, there are 1000 channels. Channels centred around almost every subject or idea you can think of. From News to Sport to Religion to Music to WildLife, conspiracy theorists have their own channel. There are porn channels, DIY channels, Radio channels, Advertising channels...there are channels for virtually everything BUT employment...

Imagine for a moment, that there was a channel dedicated soully to employment, I mean from am to am just about employment, from advice about CV's to interview techniques, advice and access to agencies/recruiters. Advice about starting up your own small/medium business, access to graduate schemes, I'm talking all the tools that are required to have an individual generate legal revenue via employment or via business means. Surely this would go a long way to combating unemployment and would give those who genuinely want to work a fighting chance of getting back on the 'money train' once falling off.

Am I the only one that sees this gap in the market?

iMoan because I have an eerie feeling that the conspiracy may in fact be a plan, maybe the government needs to maintain an unemployment tally...

iMoan: Unemployment

I'd like to start by issuing my apologies to every/anyone who looked to this site for 'updates' only to be met with the last post from July. Your forgiven for thinking the site was 'dead' and by all means 'short lived'. I have no real excuse for why there hasn't been any posts, instead I have a true statement "I refuse to rant about things I don't actually want to rant about". What I mean is, if I have no genuine feeling about the subject, I find it very difficult to rant about it. That said, I have come to a point where the truly annoying issues in my life have been discussed and I've given sincere account of my distaste and where possible, the reason behind the distaste.

*Drum roll please* - Here marks the beginning of the 'iMoan' series. You may be looking at your screen with tilted brow as you seek to justify the difference between a 'Rant' and a 'Moan'. Normally I would dig up the dictionary definition of both words then post it, in order to aid the process of highlighting the difference, however on this occasion I will just tell you what the difference is from my point of view.

If you have been reading my Rants, I hope you will agree that they are largely 'fact based opinion' (I said 'largely' not all but majority). Well my Moans, will be 'conspiracy based opinion', that is not to say that I am a conspiracy theorist but there will be many submissions that will probably have some damning implications. What will be evidently clear, is the lack of links/charts/diagrams giving statistical basis to the Moan.

Right those are the formalities out the way!

I am UNEMPLOYED! Yes....JOBLESS!
It is such an un-alluring status, I'm not sure if that is because it actually is, or if we have been taught to appreciate it as so. All I know for sure is, the declaration "I'm currently unemployed" sounds like an excuse, even when its a genuine circumstance and believe me, I'm not happy that I think/feel this way. I'm not happy for a number of reasons but the one that is most prominent is that fact that I'm not entirely sure the reason is one I've come to appreciate for myself or come to accept from society....

What I mean is, when you tell someone "I'm unemployed", I sincerely believe that a majority of people will consider it an excuse and as such consider you a 'fibber'. Now I'm in the situation, I know its not necessarily the case that you are making excuses for being "unemployed"....there are genuine circumstances that could proceed the status.

Circumstances like being made 'Redundant'. Now, at this particular moment in time, I feel incline to inform you that the reason for this post/post series, purely originates from the word 'Redundant'. I mean what in Jesus is someone supposed to take from being made 'Redundant'?

Now if you are looking at the screen, puzzled and wondering what has got my goat this day, I would urge you to take a quick peek at the dictionary definition 'Redundant'....don't worry, no need to go search for it here it is:

Redundant - deprived of one's job because it is no longer necessary for efficient operation: he has been made redundant

(Now before you jump to arms at the fact that I've only quoted one reference for the term, I urge you to asses the others listed and then consider whether they are suitable or indeed in context of an employment situation....?).

Call me sensitive, but depending on the way this sentiment is sold to you, is dependent on how

a) you feel about it
b) you feel about the company
c) you feel about yourself

Example:

If you are called into an office and told: "We have identified the possibility that you may be made redundant" please take heed and note that either the company, or the person who is delivering the news does not like you

If however you are called into a office and told "We have identified the possibility that your position may be made redundant" Chances are there is a genuine need for the business change or the company/message deliverer doesn't like.

As you can see from my two examples, the difference is two words. These two words dramatically change the impact and meaning of the message. That is a matter of English and is common in the language, what is damning however is the term 'Redundant'. In employment terms it means the above, but as a general term it means

surplus to requirements; unnecessary or superfluous

On their own these words are completely harmless, put in context however and it would seem your employer (soon to be ex) is suggesting, there are either to many people committing your role, or you are in fact no longer required.

These are both concepts that directly contradict your early doctrine. Now I say this based on the assumption that in your early years, you had loved ones and these loved ones in their infinite (inherited) wisdom, would make declarations on to you:

"You are special, don't let anybody tell you different, no matter what people say you are special, unique, irreplaceable"


"The world is your oyster"

"Anything you work hard for and give your best effort, you will achieve

"What's wrong those statements"..would be my guess at what your thinking. You will be happy to know that I don't consider anything to be 'wrong' with either statement.

Your parent, carer or loved one did make a mistake with the above statements though, the mistake has little to do with the words or the underlying sentiment. Your loved one's forgot to tell you that you are all those things in their eyes, not necessarily anybody else's...

So multiply all the comments by a few years and ingrain it in your mentality, then fast forward to being told your being made 'Redundant'....see the conflict? Now although your love one will hold an irreplaceable point of importance in your life, somewhere subconsciously you've cemented the image of your 'employer' to be of greater importance on matters of your career progress. As your employment is responsible for keeping that roof over your head and that food on your table, the weaker mind would start to believe that they are indeed 'Redundant'.

Now I'd admit on a single ocassion my 'theory' (if it can be called that) would seem extreme, but if one was to be made 'Redundant' from their last 3 or 4 jobs, it could be a different story....

With a language so eloquent, so well equipped for all scenarios and situations, telling someone they are 'Redundant' seems archaic. I mean there must be at least 100 other ways you could pass the message on without using a word, that is associated with other themes, which in turn are associated with the ideas of surplus or 'waste'.

iMoan because I am not Redundant, I've merely outgrown your limited role...

iRant: Personal Hygiene is not really 'Personal'

I have to be majorly careful not to just get into a real rage over this and just start aimlessly ranting for ranting sake. Actually...what are rants for, why shouldn't I just go off on one...? ...OK here it goes:

If I've been lucky enough to have you follow the blog (despite the hiatus) then I would like to hope you've read some of my previous posts and can appreciate my love of the English language and all its complexities. It is this love of the language that has lead me to this next rant, well that and the seemingly ignorant nature of some peoples hygienic routines.

Before I put my bread nife into the subject (The spelling of 'nife' is deliberate, go here, then you'll understand) I have to be completely clear about what I consider hygiene to be:

1. Have a bath/shower (the most basic of hygienic principles)
2. Brush your teeth
3. Wash your face
4. Wash your hands before and after toilet use
5. Rid your nose of mucus or bogey build up
6. Make sure your ear wax, stays in your ears!
7. Wash your hair at least twice a month (this is a bare minimum)

As you can see from the short list, I don't consider this subject to be overly complex and so the 7 simple steps above should see you well.

I wish that was the 'full stop' of this rant, alas...I have to go on.

I find it unacceptable to share any public space with people who have their own hygiene as a low priority. Unfortunately, the people of whom I speak have a very good point of argument on their side, in that...its call 'Personal Hygiene'.

Let us break down this terminology, to its finest ingredients ofcourse.

Personal = "Concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality", "particular to a given individual" or "intimately concerning a person's body or physical being"

Hygiene = "a condition promoting sanitary practices" or "the science concerned with the prevention of illness and maintenance of health"

Now the two definitions above have been pulled from the technological reinstatement of God = Google. Fortunately I tend to agree with all the definitions issued, the problem with this as I previously stated is it works in favour of the un-hygienic offenders. Now don't for a moment misunderstand me, I'm not particularly speaking about people who smell like Saturday night on a Monday morning commute, or individuals that have clearly worn the same t-shirt without washing it for over a week...I am speaking about the concept of 'Personal Hygiene'.

By definition (see above) it is nobodies business if you choose, for whatever reason, to not respect or abide by the 7 regions of hygiene I outlined above. Again this is what is wrong with language, because by the simple contents of its nature, personal hygiene is personal, you can't argue with that one bit, but its a shame that it can majorly affect someone else's life.

Now common sense suggests as soon as something that is personal begins to affect other parties, it becomes less personal and more public, especially in the public domain. I say that, but I also recently heard there isn't anything 'common' about common sense ... go figure.

So I guess it is inevitable that you or I, will be on the train or bus or tube and be subject to pungent, gut wrenching stank (Stank is used to describe a smell that is so bad today, that it qualifies as a past tense).

Despite my rant, there are genuine cases where a person's natural body odor is particularly...erm..'Strong', apparently its a science and so naturally Simple Simon did some research.

Causes of 'strong' body odor:

1. Diet! - Yep believe it or not spicy foods have been attributed to bad body odor. An excess of Coffee, Garlic, Cheese and spices can cause your natural odor to be, what some would describe as ...'sharp'.

2. Dirty clothes - No brainer really, if you got steamy in the t-shirt yesterday and todays hot and your wearing said t-shirt you have what I like to call 'compound stank'...you smell like the worst of yesterday and the worst of today.

3. Clean clothes dirty body - Now suprisingly you can get away with this for short periods of time, BUT if the temperature rises you will be exposed.

4. Medication - Yes medication! certain anti-biotics can trigger unpleasant smell on a person.

Now outside of the above, my most interesting finding was this:

"Sweat itself is virtually odorless to humans; it is the rapid multiplication of bacteria in the presence of sweat and what they do (break sweat down into acids) that eventually causes the unpleasant smell."

That goes to say that sweat literally doesn't 'stink' (please do not mistake that for not having a smell entirely...there is a difference).

Anyhow...I'd like to let as many people that I can know, that Personal Hygiene ...really isn't personal at all...

iRant because sometimes I just need to get it off my chest!

iRant: This language I love

I'm proud of the fact that I've stayed away from this rant for so long, simply because it is without a doubt the most f'ing annoying subject in my life at any one time. Every reminder, launches me into a fury that is perfectly replicated every. Single. Time.

I can't help it, I know it seems strange to be able to positively identify a flaw but then continue to perfectly replicate it time and time again, in fact you'd be forgiven for considering it 'retarded' because in short...it is. Fortunately I'm not asking for your understanding...I'd just like you to hear me out.


Let there be no misunderstanding here, I'm not suggesting this rant is in anyway exclusive, its not a new line of thought or in any way a break through. I'm sure it has been acknowledged before... For you to fully see where I'm coming from with this rant I'll need you to take a journey with me...back to my school days!

-Back Ground-

Simple Simon is simple, has always been, however Simple Simon...tries very hard to analyse the details because he knows he's 'simple'. Due to this attention to details I was decent at school, not overly studious (short attention span) but when I put my mind to it, I produced results.



-Scene 1 act 1-
Setting - Secondary school, Set 2 English class Yr 10 (tenth grade). Simple Simon sits at the back of the class.

Teacher: "Class, today we are not going to read from any books, or reconstruct any poems or text. I thought we'll have an improv day...I'll start on a subject area and we'll see where we end up.

Class: "Yeeeeeessss!" [begin to get a little rowdy]

Teacher: "OK class calm down, lets start with this, a quick fire spelling test, I'll call a person and tell them to spell a word. It will be easy words, no pressure its just for fun." "Martin spell 'Castor'"

Martin stands up and says "C.A.S.T.O.R"

Teacher: "Very good" "Spencer spell 'Spill'"

Spencer stands up and says "S.P.I.L.L"

Teacher: "Excellent! Simon spell 'Knife'"

Now before I continue I have to let you know, that I did it on purpose. [Right continue]

I stand up and say "N.I.F.E", everyone in the class goes quiet and there is one child in the middle row who can't help but laugh out loud. The teacher quickly says

Teacher: "Ruben stop laughing, its an easy mistake to make. Simon, you have made a mistake, care to try the word again?"

I said "Sure Miss, N.I.F.E. I didn't spell the word incorrectly thats how its supposed to be spelt."

Teacher: "Now now Simon, you know the word is K.N.I.F.E, there is a silent 'K'"

She should never had said that!

Simon: "Miss about this silent 'K' what is the point in it, if its silent why bother putting it into the spelling, I mean imagine how many people have spelt a word correctly only to be told its incorrect because of some silent letter that has no presence in the verbal morality, I mean its not as if we spell each word we utter... so whats the point?"

Now as you can imagine the teacher is stunned, that kid that thought my spelling was funny is now silenced and the classroom has now turned into my army...

Teacher: "Simon, just because something does not announce its presence or stand out so you take heed of it, does not mean it does not exist or you shouldn't respect it. Take gravity or air for example, you've never seen either of those before, yet you respect their existence"

Can anyone say "Power Shift!". My army all turned and looked to see what comeback I would issue to such an eloquent display of reasoning. I won't put up a front she would have won many battles with that one submission, but she made a fatal mistake...she brought Science to an English lesson and Science is about the details ... what is Simple Simon good with?

So I say: "Miss, you make a very valid point with regards to 'something' not having to announce its presence in order to be respected or acknowledged and on that point I concede, however, gravity and air have very discrete ways of letting you know when they are 'not' present, namely you float up without gravity and you can't breath without air. So in a funny way if your on the ground and your breathing, they have both respectively announced their presence... This is where the silent letter fiasco falls flat on its face, because there is no rhyme, reason or rule for when a silent letter is to be utilised. I mean, I could literally say my name is to be spelt P.s.y.m.o.n and every time you spell it S.i.m.o.n I would be well within my rights to tell you your wrong...it just doesn't make any sense. Whats worst Miss, is we have always been taught that if a word is difficult to spell we should try to spell it phonetically, the word 'Phonetic' is a rouse in itself because my immediate attempt at spelling it would be F.O.N.E.T.I.C. How do we know that we shouldn't use phonetics for words with silent letters, better still how are we supposed to know a word has a silent letter if its silent? Miss, way back in history I'm sure the spoken word came before the written, so it stands to reason that words written would have been phonetically identical to the spoken version, so where or when did the inclusion of all this silent letter mockery occur?"

Remember that power shift I mentioned earlier? Completely neutralised.

The rest of the class looked to the teacher for answers she could not provide. About a week later I was moved to Set 1 English...I'm not quite sure why...

Looking back on that episode and knowing what I know now (I actually know some teachers) I must have been a difficult pupil. I say that because teachers teach a syllabus and the syllabus is often f@&%rey, the teachers have little to do with the origin of the content, they are just the masters of the delivery, much like Milli Vanilli in the late 80's/90's.

So fast forward a couple decades and we now have a boundless dictionary, some smart alec tried to claim we had over a 1million words to the English language back in June 2009. The response to the claim was mixed and it wasn't decided either way, although I take comfort in the following quote

The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.

Now in plain English, the above quote just means, 'We know where English started, but it has no perceived end'. This is both an interesting and dangerous concept (the danger only comes for the connoisseurs of language). Languages outside of English were bounded, that is, they had a finite number of words that made up their diction. This has its advantages and disadvantages in my opinion.

Advantages

1. The language would potentially be less open to extremely broad interpretations (written)
2. Words could possibly be more meaningful....?
3. There is a high probability that the mockery that is the 'silent' letter would not exist.


Disadvantages

1. Language could be less expressive
2. Concepts explored by the use of extensive vocab could be less likely [not sure about this one]
3. We could lose amusing institutions such as sarcasm

Whether good or bad, there is one thing that is definitely true and that is, the growth of the English language has forced the grow of others. In some cases its been a brute force attack, example:

Words/vehicles such as Car and Aeroplane have only been in wide circulation in the last 100 years. At introduction they would have been available to a select few, but gradually over time and as they became more affordable they were pushed to the masses.

So take your mind to a small village in Africa, the villagers have seen these Aeroplanes flying overhead, they've never been in one, they have never seen one up close, but they guess it must have someone controlling it. They have no real name for it, because generally speaking 'transport' is a finite term that is proceeded by a type e.g air transport, land transport, sea transport. For the African language in question this is not an issue, after all, its transport that is in the air on the ground or on the sea. However these terms will not satisfy English, simply because:

Hot air balloons
Blimps
Aeroplanes
Helicopters
Fighter Jets

are all modes of air transport but have very different methods of completing the same task ('ish' work with me here).

Anyway, as time progresses and the reality of the plane that used to fly over the village comes closer to home (relatives coming from far on planes), the language could quite possibly need to include the new terms above, the problem is, there are no literal translations for the terms and so they get added to the language as is..and hence the language of the village/nation has grown by 5 'new' types of air transport. Multiply this by every 'new' invention made and you potentially have a language littered with words that have no real place/meaning in the language they are being used in. Face it, air transport is air transport, its literally transport that travels in the air, the intricacies are not necessary (IMO).

The danger with this is, English is becoming a widely spoken language worldwide and with this, increasing numbers of youth are not learning their mother tongue or are not learning it properly. Thus bringing about the death of languages, that is not that the language doesn't exist anymore, but the number of fluent speakers is dwindling...


And so to come full circle, why the heck do we have silent letters in words!?! My simple brain cannot justify it....aaarrrrgggggghhhh it annoys me so much, if I had it my way:

Knife = Nife
Cycle = Si-kul
Psycho = Si-co
Elephant = Elefant
xylophone = Zi-lofone

Done...simple.


As if the silent letter saga wasn't enough you also have words that sound the same but are spelt differently:

Might, mite.
Light, lite.
Weight, wait.
Waste, waist.

How are you to know which is right and when? (Imagine you were new to the language)

Oh this language I love...

iRant: You mean you didn't cater for me?

I might have lied in my last post This language I love, not about whether I love the language or not, but about it being the single most annoying thing at any one time. I say that because I remembered this next rant worthy subject and realised it is one of my pet peeves.

This is bound to ruffle a few feathers...

Scenario 1

Your out on the town, having a good time on a budget, your not loaded, but your not on the poverty line (although your ever mindful of its presence). It gets to just gone midnight and your about to go onto the night club after perusing the local bars, you check your pockets, no cash, you check your wallet only a tenner left. You do the smart thing and go to the cash point (ATM).

You stick your card in, mess up the pin entry the first time then get the right combination of numbers on the second go, you retrieve your card from the machine and wait patiently for your cash to be dispensed.

Some 15 seconds later, proof of your last 28 days of labour materialise as crisp notes breathe the city air. You check the sum discretely, ensuring the exact amount requested is actually accounted for.

You fold the notes neatly and slide them into your wallet as you place your card back into its 'place'. Just as you fold the wallet and put it into your pocket you hear a faint sound, it sounded like somebody spoke, in fact you know it was a persons voice, you even recall the words uttered "Got any spare change". You look left and right, but you can't see anybody, you look skyward and again, nobody. "Excuse me, got any spare change" you look down and there is a person bundled in blankets with an outstretched cup and a sympathetic facial expression.

Scenario 2

You walk past the local youth gang and enter the local sweet shop, you ask the 'guvna' for a 20 pack of your favourite cancer sticks. Mr Patel/Singh/Shah grabs your selected product off the shelf behind him, 'tots' you up and asks for "£4.50 please". You pay the man, wish him a good day and set off on your way. You haven't had a cigarette in the last 5 hours, just finished eating and could well do with one, so you unwrapped the WMD's as you walk to the shop exit.

As you leave the shop your first cigarette goes into your mouth and you light it up. You pass the local youth gang again, just as you get 2 steps past them you hear "Excuse me mate, have you got a spare cigarette?".

The Analysis

The above are examples of a daily occurrence. Most people have experienced either of the scenarios or at least been witness to them.
Now I know these two scenarios are not high up on the agenda as far as 'critical' issues are concerned and I'm not even going to try and argue that they are. I would however like to ask 'why in Jesus' [disclaimer] do people think that its ever appropriate to ask "do you have a spare?".

No...seriously, let us explore this flawed concept.

Deconstruction of scenario 1.

The person in the blankets has strategically positioned themselves by the cash dispensing machine, note this position, because the strategy attached to it is of paramount importance. Do not, for one minute think that being close to an electronic device such as an ATM could possibly afford one who is in its proximity extra warmth, because most 'off premises' ATM's are mounted onto solid walls with all the electronic 'gizmundo-try' neatly tucked behind the wall. So no, the person is not there for the warmth.

The person is not working as part of some community initiative to help crack down on ATM robberies, the person is not part of an undercover S.W.A.T team, who has a number of undercover colleagues in the local area (that is actually a good idea....might suggest it).

No ladies and gentlemen, this individual is attempting to use your own guilt against you, see you've just withdrawn money, so there is no way you can honestly say you don't have any (you know that is your usual excuse, its OK, you are not alone). So now you have a 'Mexican stand off', if you have no intention of giving the person any money, thats fine, but how to translate that becomes your problem. Can you see how this person has added extra stress to your evening?


Deconstruction of scenario 2.

There is an element of danger to this scenario, primarily because it involves the 'local mob' so to speak. You see, lying to the local youth, may not present any trouble today, or even tomorrow, but it could be a contributory factor to some mishaps at a later date.

Again, like the person in scenario 1, the positioning of the mob is very strategic, its even well thought out to a degree. You see what you have to appreciate is these guys (and girls) are gathered at a point where they can clearly see the local shop and the pathway that leads to it, giving a fantastic view of what you have just bought!

The problem now comes because, you walked passed the gathered mass and they saw your hands were empty, they saw you walking into the shop, they saw you leave the shop, they saw you open that fresh box of cigarettes! So now if you deny having any, you've created a negative atmosphere, you also have to remember the 'mob' is local...they know where you live! Again they are using your guilt against you.


The Rant (Please excuse the profanity)

I used to be plagued by the above scenarios. The scenario's above are not one's that I have necessarily been through myself (I don't smoke), but they both hold true the method of using your own guilt against you. I literally spent years trying to avoid any of the two above scenario's or at least the possible confrontation they could be the catalyst to.

I would pretend to be on the phone whilst at the ATM so as not 'hear' the request for 'spare change' or I would advise that one puts their newly purchased goods in their pockets. Some might call it sheepish, cowardly even, I consider it making the ultimate peace and trying to get on as normal.

That was until I really sat down and thought about it one day. When I got to the mathematics of the situation I decided I no longer had to use any avoidance tactics.

Getting back at the guilt pushers

Person in blankets: "Excuse me, have you got any spare change"

Simple Simon: *Looks in pocket, pulls out all the loose change, counts it, then says* "Nope, I left my house with exactly £4.26 and I still have £4.26" *Replaces change and continues on his way*

Now I know the immediate reaction to this is going to be a mixture of laughter and possibly some outrage, but let us remain focused, the entire setup of the scenario
is designed to f%£k with your conscience.

Yes we know that not everyone is fortunate, yes we know that we should try to help and support those that are less fortunate, if I'm not mistaken all religious scriptures have some passage about helping the 'needy'. I just don't recall any scripture saying the 'needy' were authorised to use tactics to inveigle you into helping them.

My local 'ATM minder' cottoned on to my quick whit and devised a plan to thwart me, he changed the order of his words in his question from

"Excuse me, have you got any spare change"

to

"Excuse me, have you got any change you can spare"

Very clever 'Mr ATM minder', but the answer is still "NO". Because in truth, lets face it, you work 35+hrs a week for 4weeks, then you get a payslip, on the payslip the government openly brandish the fact that they've seen your money before you have and they have taken their share, before you've even seen your money. They then give you whats left, problem is the amount before deductions is about 1k more than what your left with, your local hospital is rated worst in the country and the police take 20mins to respond to any emergency call. Do you see any 'spare change' or 'change to spare' in that formula? I can't.


I'm not forgetting the 'spare cigarette' scenario either.

Mob member: "Excuse me mate, have you got a spare cigarette?"

Simple Simon: *Opens box, counts cigarettes, 19 remaining + one in mouth = 20* "Nope, I went into the shop without any, I asked the shop keeper for a box of 20, he gave me this box, I gave him £4.50".

I'm sorry but where do people get off? You don't walk into a shop and say "Could I have a 20box of B&H and 1 spare please" or "Could I have a pack of cigarettes and all the spares you can afford to give me?" It's just bullshit, you know what, I'm even going to suggest it has something to do with the English language and its insincerity, because "Excuse me mate, have you got a spare cigarette?" is basically saying, "You've paid your hard earned money for cancer sticks, so I can come and ponce one off you for free" f%$king cheek!

Funny thing is, ever the businessman, the local shop keeper has now cottoned on to this 'spare' phenomenon that has gripped the nation. Apparently you are now able to buy a 'single'. For those who are not in the know a 'single' is 1 cigarette out of a box, this solitary cigarette is sold for about 25p, not a lot in single terms. Its only when you multiply that 25p by 20 (the contents of a medium sized box of cigarettes) that you come to realise the corner shop owner has identified a market and is making 50p per box extra from it...very clever.

This can been considered a community service, because if you are not as brazen as Simple Simon, you could simply assert "You may buy a 'single' from the local shop" to your local youth gang. They are fully aware of this fact and so it may serve you well to give them the required 25p for said single. However be warned, you are setting your self up for this to be a regular occurrence, or at least as regularly as you pass the local youth gang.

Personally, I'd tell these people to take a running jump!

No I didn't cater for you! What have you done for me lately?

1.6.1 iRant: Drug addicts shouldn't be in a position of power

I'll be totally honest I don't actually know why I'm even bothering to rant about this, because basically its true.

I mean, people have enough trouble controlling themselves under normal circumstances without adding an addictive substance to the mix, so its a given that someone addicted to a narcotic substance shouldn't really be in a position of power, especially in a position of power over others...right?

Here is the problem, thinking along the most basic of lines, I wouldn't trust a heroin addict with the controls of a car that I am in. That goes for all forms of transport. Equally I probably wouldn't trust the said person with my bank details. Yes I'm blanketing, no I am not looking at the individual for who they are...I'm sorry but F&$K That! They can't be trusted!!!!!

There must be something wrong with me, because I thought that was cut and copy...BUT! it turns out not to be the case!

*Lets go back, way back....back into, oh you get the picture*

OK so I first started looking for famous people with narcotic habits...I knew this would reap an instant plethora of results, it almost had to, celebs have a lot of time on their hands and 'excess unproductive time - focus = folly'...(I like that formula, I should patent it). So I wasn't surprised that I was inundated with results, here are a select few:

(I will no doubt crush the image of some of your heroes...)

Charles Dickens – The author of A Tale of Two Cities and A Christmas Carol was addicted to opium for many years and used the drug heavily right up to the time of his death (by massive stroke).

Florence Nightengale – It was discovered after her death that the most famous nurse who ever lived was a notorious opium users.

Sigmund Freund - physician, "Father of Psychoanalysis". (Cocaine)

Salvador Dali - painter "Everyone should eat hashish, but only once."

OK, so out of this small list the first 3 really surprised me, I didn't have a clue about their personal habits.

So like I said it wouldn't be hard finding celebs with addictions, so I thought let me stay in line with the subject of the rant and see if I could find any influential, important, global figures that were a little lacking of self control...oh shit I wish I didn't!!!

Brace yourself for this list:

Marion Barry - mayor of Washington, D.C. (Cocaine)
Bono Sonny - U.S. Senator, actor (Prescription Drugs)
George W. Bush - Governor of Texas (Cocaine)
Winston Churchill - British prime minister (Opium and Alcohol)
Grover Cleveland - U.S. president (Cocaine)
William Clinton - U.S. president "Well, I did smoke pot, but I didn't inhale." (Marijuana)
Ram Daas - psychologist, author, guru (LSD)
Ben Franklin - inventor, publisher, scientist, American statesman. (Opium and Marijuana)
Ulysses S. Grant - U.S. president (Cocaine and Alcohol)
Thomas Jefferson - U.S. president, inventor, architect, marijuana farmer. (No surprises here Marijuana)
Joseph McCarthy - U.S. Senator (Opium)
Nixon, Richard - U.S. President (Dilantin)
Plotinus - Roman philosopher, 205-270 AD (Opium)

Right...so I made sure to make this second list longer (significantly) than the first, now just at a glance I can see that the evidence blows the stereotype away. Not only because there are so many entries, but the position held by the entries are quite simply, that of the most powerful/influential in the world!!!!

There have been 43 US presidents, 5 of which appear on this list and of those 5, 3 were on *Class A* narcotics. Now strictly speaking what people do in their own time should have nothing to do with what you do at work (unless your a pilot or coach driver drinking heavily 2hrs before your flight/shift) but I really cannot find comfort in the idea that I'm going to elect/support a person that is losing the battle with their own will power. My simple sense won't allow it!!!

What is really interesting about this list is not limited to the people on it, I'm looking at a broader concept here. The people on this list have addictions and huge responsibilities, so where does my formula from earlier fit in? 'excess unproductive time - focus = folly'...are these influentials actually busy at all?

Deeper still is the idea that 'anyone' can be in a position of power and control, even drug addicts. I love the concept in principle but I am extremely pissed off about the fact that this concept doesn't filter down to lower levels of society. I know it sounds scary but I think in a funny way it would have a reverse effect on the crime rate, humour me here, imagine if your neighbourhood 'junky' didn't have wait till you left your house unattended so he/she could rob it? Imagine if he/she had to make his/her own way to their employment? Like actually leave the same time as you....

That would be an instant decrease in the crime rate and number of unemployed (no I'm not saying all the unemployed are criminals or junkies).

Imagine the working environment, competition would be high in the work place because any prospect of a raise or a bonus means 'MORE DRUGS' and so they would work harder than your average 'Joe'. In fact the only issue I can see is with the heroin addicts taking a hit at lunch time and ...well....not coming back for 4hrs (time it takes for functional consciousness to resume - subject to individual of course). Junkies would love to have a sustainable revenue stream....giving them jobs would provide that...definitely!

I'm so sorry I digressed massively there! Back to the list of 'influentials'...the standout feature of the list for me was how many people used Opium. Its an overwhelming number and I'm not sure why...that is something else I have to look into.

The list would have the gullible believe that American Presidents/Senators are partial to drugs, or that Opium is OK if your ever in office or position of power...but that aside that, the most ironic piece of comedy out of all this (for me anyway) is that Adolf Hitler, (Mr 45 degree salute) didn't partake in any narcotics at all...none, he didn't drink or smoke. With regards to his relationship with drugs he was a paragon of virtue...

iRant and I recon we should give junkies a chance to be in positions of power...oh sorry it seems we already have.

1.4 iRant: Stereotypes + Ignorance = Racism

Racism! My all time favourite subject...I absolutely relish the opportunity to witness some verbal racism, love it, love it, love it! Not because its actually enjoyable, but because some of the stupidity that comes from the minds of some people is absolutely hilarious... For example, if you open another tab on your browser and navigate to www.google.com (I don't know why that wouldn't be your home page but hey, each to their own) and type in the following :

"Can I get ai"

Do NOT and I repeat DO NOT hit search or enter on the keyboard, just wait for Google's search engine to toss up some 'suggestions'... the very first suggestion that comes up is actual hilarity, it is the silliest thing I've heard outside of "How much is a 1.99 meal?". This is the reason I love racism so much...please do not misunderstand me, I'm not an advocate of racism or racist conduct, I'm just entertained by the ignorant verbal (or written) results.

The title of this post is an equation, well in actual fact its not, simply because StereoTypes + Ignorance does not equal Racism, its a little more complex than that, however when you initially read it, it seems to make sense and so thats how I labelled it!

Closer scrutiny will confirm that a 'Stereotype' as part of its nature, is quite close to ignorance in its basic form, being that a Stereotype is standardized and simplified conceptions of groups, based on some prior assumptions. These standardized/simplified concepts and assumptions are NOT often based on objective truth, in fact they are normally centered around subjective or even unverifiable content-matter. So you are often audience to some really stupid submissions and I just can't help but laugh!

Ignorance or at least the concept of it is a funny thing in itself, in its implicit form the word means "something or someone who is uninformed" this is neither a good or bad thing...its just a thing. However the word 'ignorant' is tossed around quite freely and often to make the recipient feel inferior to the sender! More over I think the word 'ignorant' is often used in place of the word 'stubborn', which is done out of ignorance I guess (lol this is funny). I think ignorance is often the fuel for stereotypes and because stereotypes are usually about a specific group of people I would liken that combination to prejudice and once prejudice turns up to a party that stereotypes and ignorance are hosting there will be nothing but racism as a result.....*takes deep breaths*.

Right now I've got that off my chest time for some examples:

Stereotypes

Pets in the West have life the best
Blacks and chicken
Vicars are kiddie fiddlers - Well this used to be a stereotype.. (I know I know low blow.)
Rednecks are inbreds - No comment
Drug addicts shouldn't be in positions of power
All Muslims are terrorists - Absolute bullshit!
Jews are particularly frugal - Erm...no comment

Ignorance

Origin of 'Nigger'

Hmmmm...I'm enjoying this ranting I tell ya!

1.5 iRant: Pets in the West have life the best...

Now I'm going to be very careful about how I approach this rant, because I know there are very many animal lovers out there. I too am an animal lover...ish, kinda, of sorts.

OK...let me put it to you straight, Simple Simon loves animals, but Simple Simon REALLY loves animals that are in their own habitats! I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I know, they make great pets and are part of the family and all that good stuff, but Simple Simon can't share his apartment, flat ,condo or house with 'Lassie'. It just won't happen...

What is interesting however, (hence the name of the post) is this relationship close relationship with animals (dogs and cats especially) seems to really only occur or be prominent in the western world (Western world = Europe and America...IMO). I'm fortunate enough to have friends from all over the world, OK that is an open statement let me list where they are from *takes deep breathe*

Bangledesh
Indian
Pakistan
Sri-Lanka
Vietnam
Japan
China
Phillipines
Australia
St Lucia
Jamaica
Barbados
Puerto Rico
Europe
Nigeria
Ghana
Angola
Zimbabwe
South Africa


*Takes deep breath*

So with the list above ( I hope I've remembered everyone) I have taken a look at their habits with pets, sort of my own experiment if you will. Here are my findings:

(Do not take offense to the grouping!)

My friends from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri-Lanka do not have dogs period. I think this may have a little to do with religious beliefs, I think its said that angels will not enter a house which contains a dog. Or something along those lines.

My friends from China, Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam don't seem to have any Cats, Dogs, Gerbils, Snakes, Hamsters, Ferrets or Guinea Pigs and I can't work out for the life of me why. In fact come to think of it, they all seem to live in neighborhoods where the local population doesn't seem to have dogs or cats either...I'll have to think more into that one.

My friends from Australia, St Lucia, Barbados, Jamaica and Puerto Rico have dogs, but they are all for practical purposes...the dogs guard the household. The dogs are shown an heir of love to an extent but that love/respect allows the animal to know that it's realm is outside the house and the owners realm is inside. You are very unlikely to see a dog on the front room chair or in someones bed in these countries.

My friends from Europe all have houses heaving with pets that have equal or greater rights than the human occupants, the dog can piss on the carpet in the lounge and all that will happen is the humans in the house will argue over who didn't take 'Rex' for a walk. Meanwhile 'Mutley' is in the corner watching the humans mop up his piss and laughing his head off.

My friends from Nigeria, Ghana and Angola have dogs under the same agreement as those from the Carribean and Australia.

The reason I'm breaking up and seemingly segrigating Zimbabwe and South African is because I'm fortunate enough to have a mixture of black and white friends from these countries and I must say there is a bit of a pattern...

My white friends from Zimbabwe and South Africa have a very European attitude towards pets, I don't find this surprising due to historic links with the Dutch and again my black friends from said places have dogs for practical reasons.

Right so thats the patterns out the way...time for some facts and figures!

*Lets do the math*

I kid you not some people have done some math on how much exactly it costs to own a dog...here are the findings:

Blood Hound - Life expectancy 9yrs - Cost for 9yr period = £19,833
Boxer - Life expectancy 12yrs - Cost for 12yr period = £21,760
Rottweiler - Life expectancy 12yrs - Cost for 12yr period = £24,340

I'm going to stop there, if you want to know about other breeds go here.

Now stop me if I'm wrong but these lifetime costs are looking like salaries...and simple math will have me find that these dogs are costing over £1,500 a year, easily.

I'm going to be an advocate now and list the governments spending on the homeless:

...and that is where I managed to undo myself can you believe it took me about 5mins (less) to find the average spend for the lifetime of a pet, yet I searched for over a week (the reason there haven't been any new posts!) and still didn't find any figures for the national budget spend for the homeless in the UK. I have loads of estimates on the total number of homeless in the UK, breakdowns for number of homeless per local council, political constituency, almost every other type of breakdown EXCEPT £ sterling spend per person!

So..alas, I can't make the cross reference comparison I so badly wanted to, in order to prove my point that pets in the west have life the best...I'm blatantly upset about that!

..but then again the fact that there aren't any monetary figures, could be case in point? As in, the UK government cares less about the homeless than they do about pets?? I'm jus sayin....


I'm still saying "Pets in the west have life the best" I don't care!...oh look 'Rex' just took a dump in the kitchen.


P.s.

Killing a police dog carries the same penalty as killing a police officer

Knocking over a dog and not stopping could also see you in serious trouble with the law (if there are witnesses that shop you).


...irant even with no opposing evidence.

P.s.s If you can find figures for the amount spent on the homeless for any country or government please post me a link...thanks!

1.6 iRant: Blacks and Chicken

This is a very funny stereotype...in fact I'm actually quite silly for even taking this one on because...well erm, its a bit of a no brainer.

Black people LOVE chicken, it is the sacrificial meat of the black diet. Please do not get offended because I'm using the term 'Black' to describe a people and please understand when I say 'Black' or 'Blacks' I'm referring to Africans.

Before you start getting all specific and segregative, Africans = anyone with Black skin. If you wish to try and identify if you or anyone else has black skin, do this simple assessment:

"If you or they (person your trying to decipher as black) were to run down the street and grab some old ladies bag and there were loads of witnesses, how would those witnesses describe you/them to the Police?"

Now on the surface this is misleading right, because some mixed raced people would/could be described as black right? Now you see how misleading a stereotype can be....

Anyhoot I digress, back to the Chicken saga. Its a stereotype that has been with black people for a very long time, now although it does not necessarily paint black people in a bad light, it has been used as a subject of ridicule. Some large global well known food outlets have taken it upon themselves to 'target' the black market...nothing wrong with that I hear you say and I principle I agree, but then you watch an add like this:



Now I am a simple man, very simple in fact, but I cannot for the life of me understand what the "Awkward situation" was, from what I could see, fans of the Caribbean cricket team were cheering their team on and minding their own business. I could see no threatening behaviour towards the Aussie fan and no reason for the crowd to be 'pacified' with chicken... Am I missing something?

Then there is this:



Now...um...err... sorry, I'm totally unbiased with all of this, but this just took the absolute piss!

Ads like those above do not do anything for unity or peace amongst the races, young impressionable people watch the ad and automatically think its 'OK' to think or put across these type of views because if it managed to get on TV..it 'MUST' be 'OK'...*SMH*.

Anyhoot seems I've digressed somewhat again!

Right so I've been lucky enough to travel to different parts of the world and on my travels I always try to remain open minded but also keep a keen eye out for the details.

On my travels I've noticed, a majority of the fast food chicken outlets (branded and non branded) share a common trait. No its not that the Chicken is abused, or that the chicken offers very little nutritional value. No the thing I've noted to be in common in a majority of fast food chicken outlets is the geological origin of the person serving the chicken, they always seem to be of Asian decent. When I say 'Asian' in this instance I do NOT mean Eastern Asian..I mean Western, Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Pakistan, India...that part of Asia.

I noticed it in:

London
Luton
Leicester
Manchester
Birmingham
Portsmouth
Basingstoke

Chicago
Boston
Minnesota

Amsterdam
Paris
Barbados
St Lucia
Jamaica

No...really I did! I couldn't believe it.

Now the way I see it, Asian's must love chicken just as much as black people, because in truth a lot of Asian dishes are made with chicken. In fact Lamb and chicken are most common meats in Asian dishes. That coupled with the fact that most chicken shop/spots/ fast food outlets are manned by Asian's.....????

Obviously your sitting there thinking "Just because someone sells something doesn't mean they love it too, they may not even use/consume the thing they are selling". To which I will pause, then say "You are partly right, but, go and ask a drug dealer (preferable a cocaine/crack dealer) if they love Bolivia". You might be looking at the screen and wonder what the hell I'm on about now, so I'll explain:

A drug dealer, one who is pretty high up in the ranks, the 'importer' if you will, loves Bolivia, he may never have been there in his life! but he loves Bolivia. If you come between him and Bolivia, he will kill you for the love of Bolivia. This drug dealer doesn't even take drugs...he just sells them... Asian's Love Chicken!

I'm even going to go one step further! There are more Asian's in the world than black people, so even if only half the Asian population loved chicken...guess what, thats still more than the total number of black people that could...

This stereotype is nonsense!

I will continue to rant...

1.7 iRant: Origin of Nigger

This should be an open and shut case really, shouldn't actually be anything to talk about on this one at all...after all the word 'Nigger' doesn't actually exist.

There...done.

No but seriously, I thought I would have a look into the origin of the word Nigger, to see where/why it started. To my surprise, there isn't a reference for the term (well I couldn't find one). Now I know you will (you should) go and do a search straight away and then say "whats he on about, I found this you'll no doubt feel as if everything I've said is a load of cabbage and discredit the rest of the post in your mind?...

I say you'll do that, because I nearly did, until I re-read that wiki page

The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the colour "black".

This is the most important sentence I found on that page because it does two very important things:

1. Tries to fool you into believing the word Nigger actually has some genuine origin
2. Tries to stitch up the Spanish/Portugese for a word that is just the description of a colour in their language.

Ok lets take it back:

Negro is the Spanish/Portugese word that came from the Latin Nigr, which literally means 'black'...as in the colour, not 'black person', 'dirty black', 'filthy black', 'lazy black', just Black...as in the colour. If you still don't understand what I mean then every time you want to buy a garment that happens to be 'black' say Nigr instead.

See something so simple, but yet still somehow we have the word 'Nigger' in full circulation. Now as far as I know Latin is supposed to be the 'father/mother' of all European languages...? (Some historians will probe deeper still and argue that Egyptians gave birth to the verbal/written morality that became Latin and yada yada yada)...these may or may not be valid points but my issue is with the word 'Nigger' and so I don't feel I need to delve any further back *takes deep breath*..."Stay focused Simon"!

So, from Nigr comes Negro, this really should have been the end of it, because in truth English already had the noun 'Black' to describe...well...what we commonly know as 'Black' the colour. So I for the life of me cannot understand how we got from Negro to Nigger. Then again, the French seemed to adopt the world Negré from Negro and they already had the word 'Noir' to describe the colour 'black'...then in 1916 John Rolfe gave account of African Slaves labelling them 'Negars', which I imagine was his own inventive twist on Negro...hold on a minute, this is starting to look like the word Nigger was deliberately invented to be used as a derogative slur to be launched at black people...

iranted and exposed my own ignorance...*smh*

Hello World

Simple Simon here, the name suits the nature. I am a basic route one character, all be it a little wordy at times, but route one none the less.

I'm not here to educate, enlighten or enrich anybody's life (though it would be nice). I seek merely to rant...and have my say, if you choose to read it great, if you choose to comment fantastic, but I just want to have my say!!!

!!!!DISCLAIMER!!!!

1. I am racist. I don't like Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, Semites, or people of mixed heritage. I'm sorry but thats just the way it is.
Within the perimeters of this blog the word nigga and any of its derivatives (nugga, nucca, negroid etc) are not be construed as a description of colour but a description of a type of behaviour/psyche.

(Example: A Jew with a coat hanger for a TV aerial, would be described by Simple Simon as 'Naygorish')


2. I do not conform to a particular religious denomination, however you may feel from reading some of the things I may say, that I am first Christian and then second a Christianity basher. Please let me make it clear I am neither.
Please do not be offended if you read the following terms on my pages:
- Until Jesus
- In Jesus
- Since Jesus
Within the perimeters of this blog, Jesus is/was NOT a person. Jesus is however a point in time or a unit of measure.

P.s - This Disclaimer will surely grow

!!!!End of Disclaimer!!!! (For now)

1. iRant: HotDog Vs Hot Dog Roll

OK...so I know this is probably the least important thing on your mind at any one time, but I have to say it's one of those minute annoyances that is gaged just right to hack me off, but not enough for a full on public outburst. Like I said, I know there are more pressing issues that are even more annoying like Bankers bonuses or Bogus Save Our Planet commercials or the fact that Pork seems to be in everything these days. But the ratio of Hot Dog Rolls to Hot Dogs is seriously messed up!

*Lets do the math*

The minimum number of hot dogs one can buy is 6 in a pack, but you can buy hot dogs (sausages) in any of the following combinations 6,8,10,12...which is great!
The crap part comes when analyzing the natural partner of the sausage; the hot dog roll. These are strangely sold in the following multiples 6.... and here in lies the problem, if you buy an 8 pack of hot dogs, your always gonna have 2 extras sausages, if you buy a 10pack, 4 ...you get the drift. So am I right in thinking if I choose to buy an 8 or 10 pack of sausages so the children in my house can ALL have hot dogs I have to buy more bread than is actually going to be used? Essentially throwing away 2 healthy hot dog rolls? Now where is the sense in that....just pisses me off.

(Yes I know you can eat the rolls with something else....but work with me here)

Maybe I have issues......

1.1 iRant: Bankers Bonuses

What led to this point...



OK..so I won't bore you with the ins and outs of the whole banking cock up saga that saw the world (well at least the financial capitals of) up in arms last year. I won't even bother analyzing whether or not it was the bad mortgages or dodgey loans that bought about what was nearly the biggest financial collapse in history (I know I know I made it dramatic...chill out). I don't even want to query or justify the Bn's of £'s of bonuses that have magically come from 'somewhere' to be available for certain big cats to get their mitts on.

No...I want to ask why? Why is it the Bn's of £'s worth of bonuses are only going to a handful of people in a small sector of the banking industry. Why isn't Martha 'the bank clerk' getting her fair share of the bonuses? Martha managed to sell 15 low risk personal loans, introduced 6 new mortgage applications and 3 re-mortgages from rival companies. Martha is never late and in the last 4yrs has only take 2 days sick out of the statutory 20 days for that period, thats 10%...10% people!

*Lets do the math*

RBS were geared to pay £1.3bn in bonuses to 22,000 investment bankers this year, that would see each person receiving about £59,050. Now stop me if I'm wrong but isn't that like 2yrs salary for some people?

The above would mean Martha would get squat!

BUT (here is what I'm proposing)

There are about 170,000 RBS employees in the country, if the £1.3bn bonus was shared equally amongst the entire staff of the UK, Martha and everyone else would get £7,647. Now don't get me wrong that might not be a huge amount of money but on average a person in Martha's position would earn about £20K annually, so that 7g is like a 38% bonus! Thats more than decent to me...

Now you might think 'What about the investment banker', I would say, this is supposed to be a democracy (when it suits the powers that be) and by that assessment 'Majority Rules'....there are more bank clerks than investment bankers...so I guess the IB's need to console themselves with the 3qtr mill salaries they already earn...?

*sigh* and irant...

1.2 iRant: Bogus save the planet commercials

What led to this point...




Ok...so I'm sitting at home relaxing and committing the mortal sin of having the TV on at what I like to call the 'receptive hour'. For those of you not in-sync with that description here is brief -

'The receptive hour'

- Is the time when you're conscious but not necessarily at the height of your mental abilities...kinda like your brain is working, but it isn't 'working' if you get what I mean? Its kinda like your most vulnerable time of any day, a time where the silliest suggestions actually get some brain processing time. So what would normally register as a sack of excrement to your fully functioning brain, is actually being considered (even mildly) by this less sophisticated version of your cerebral self.

The receptive hour is normally at night, late at night and you normally know when the time is because 1 of 2 things happen

1. Party Political Broadcasts (Election campaigning normally)adverts come on or
2. Laughable environmental 'save our planet' adverts grace your screen!

Whats wrong with that you say?

On the surface I would probably agree with you, but then I can't help but ask, "Why the hell are they showing this at this time of night? Is the environment only important at night? Do voters only watch TV in the twilights?".

I think the truth is, 'they' know you are at your most vulnerable when you're sleepy and so will use this time to sell you non-sense, I mean take for instance the 'save the trees' campaign I heard the other night:

"The world is changing, carbon emissions are damaging our atmosphere and more and more of our planets species are becoming extinct. 'What can you do?' Give just £2 a month to help stop deforestation in the developing world and give our children a chance"

BullSHIT! I'm sorry but how can me giving £2 a month stop trees from being cut down...? Surely if you turn the fu@%ing chainsaws off, save the extra fuel from the trucks and diggers that would decrease some of the the carbon emissions that are "damaging our atmosphere" and stop you trying to mug me off at 3am!

Funny thing is before I got to this opinion I was nearly sold...I guess bullshit marketing at the 'receptive hour' is a powerful marketing tool.

And still irant...

1.3 iRant: Pork seems to be in everything

What led to this point...




Ok...so I don't eat pork (I'm steadily noticing every single post is starting with "Ok...so"...i'm just sayin') if people want to 'dine on the swine' I have not one issue with it...really I don't. Dine to your delight, fill your chuffers with the split huffed meat, it bothers me none, thats your choice.

Therein lies the bloody problem though, pork as an ingredient is becoming less and less of a choice and more and more of a default option. "Pork with your cream crackers sir".

Gone are the days when you actually have to specifically ask for pork, now you get it in sweets, other meats, in preservatives...in dam near everything.

I once ordered a Tuna steak, the description on the menu tantilised my palette and opened up my appetite almost immediately. It came, looking absolutely scrumptious...upon closer inspection, the Tuna steak was garnished with some diced cubes lightly fried and very pink! No surprises then that I didn't eat it, but I did naively question the waitress

Me: "Erm excuse me, what are these pink cubes so liberally scattered all over this plate?"


Waitress: "That is the 'Chorizo' sir"

Me: "I'm sorry what is Chorizo by its nature I'm not familiar with it, is it a herb or a meat"

Waitress: "Its Pork sir"

Now initially I wanted to flip out and ask the most sensible question (to me) which was 'Why the hell would you garnish a Tuna steak with PORK!', but then some very quick mental arithmetic saw me admit to myself that not knowing what 'Chorizo' was, could be construed as naive. Equally however, if you don't eat something why would you know what it is...opposite to that, if you don't eat something then maybe you should know all possible combinations of that thing so as to actively avoid it...shit I'm on a winning losing streak with this one.

Anyway, whilst this mental tennis was talking place, the waitress tentatively waited for what I would say next. I simply asked her to take it back as I didn't want it, she did the usual "Whats wrong with it sir, can I get you something different?" but by this time my desire to eat had wained so badly that even the thought of chewing upset me. I simply watched my dining partner chomp away and waited to order a dessert (apple crumble with Ice Cream NOT Custard).

The scary thing is this 'Pork pollution' has also breached religions lines. There was a report in the UK about major suppliers of Halal chicken, who were inadvertently selling chicken meat that contained a protein supplement that also contained both pork and beef DNA! You may ask "why would you need a protein supplement for chicken meat?" I know I did and the answer left me a little disheartened.

The outfit that supply the chicken meat to the suppliers who then supply the restaurants, pump the chicken with water to increase its weight and thus profit. The best way to have the chicken retain this water is to also pump it full of protein, the proteins come in a number of chemical compounds some of which are vegetable based. However pork and beef based compounds are the cheapest... so no more guessing why they do it...?

This just leaves me asking "Why?"

Watch this and make your own mind up:




I think its worth a rant...